/lit/ - Literature

>>15879672
Yes

What makes it better?

>>15879728
the manifesto has the depth of a puddle

>>15879728
>>15879742

It's a ridiculous comparison. The legitimate comparison would have been the Grundrisse vs. Capital V.1. The OP is comparing a short polemical tract to a very long, unfinished economic draft, or in better words, he's comparing a short story to an epic novel.

>>15879728
I haven't read Grundrisse but the Manifesto is literally a propaganda pamphlet. Not an essential Marx work at all.

>>15880118
anon that is why the former is virgin and the latter is chad.

>>15880713
>Not an essential Marx work at all.

It's literally one of the most important political works of all time.

>>15881702
It is "important" because of lazy fuckers that don't read his main work

>>15881731
But the thing is a lot of the Communist leaders who had HUGE effect on the world like Stalin and Ceausescu (who definitely did NOT read a lot of Marx) were incredibly important and changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people, if you don't knowledge this as important you are simply retarded.

I get the impression that Grundrisse is Marx's pure and unfiltered thoughts on capital. If that's true, then why is Das Kapital his magnum plus, especially when it wasn't completed with the unfinished second and third volumes published posthumously?

>>15882013

The Kapital project was his life's work. Volumes two and three have legitimacy in the sense that they were pushed near completion in Marx's lifetime and later edited and completed by the most sympathetic and competent editor imaginable: Engels, his general. Then there's Theories of Surplus Value, the presumptive fourth volume. I once sat down with a complete edition of MECW for like an hour and I couldn't quite discern where that text is supposed to begin and end.

>>15879728
Marx writes about literature which should be of interest to those on /lit/

bump

>>15881731
It's "unimportant" because a homicidal French pedophile wanted to stroke his own ego by trying to make himself out to be a better Marx than Marx.

>>15879672
wordsworth-tier cover

>>15883916
t. limpwrist

>>15883916

No, it isn't on-purpose laughable like those. On the contrary it's a simple use of an existing real photo, as opposed to some weird picture with literally cringe-inducing eyes. I always associate the pic with Lewis Hine but upon review it turns out to be one August Sander, saw a multiple of the photograph in a museum once, a few years ago and thought "oh, the Grundrisse pic."

Apart from the obvious labor context, the bricks on his shoulder are a good image choice because they suggest the density of the book itself.

>>15884016
wtf it's a real photo? the perspective is so fucked it would fit right in a david dees illustration

Reading the 1844 manuscripts and I mostly buy Marx's thesis but I don't understand why the worker/proletariat, in a universal sense, has to be the subject of revolutionary self-consciousness. Marx's metaphysics of mankind reminds me of Heidegger's thrownness, which is fine, except Marx presumes the preexistence of given nature like Feuerbach (not to the same extent as Feuerbach, but still to an extent). In effect Marx has a transcendental analysis of the subject-as-labor, the subject as freely constituting himself.

That's all fine, but why couldn't we accept that and then also add some transcendent, dogmatic content (which we believe in for other reasons)? Heidegger has a very similar transcendental analytic, but his primary ethical category is authenticity, not free labor. For Heidegger free labor would only even make sense within the context of a folk. Even more directly, you could be a religious person or a mystic, and say outright that Marx is right about his immanent analysis but he can't touch transcendent truths.

Either Marx can't touch those truths, or he denies their validity, but if the latter, he has stepped outside his own immanent transcendental analysis and become dogmatic himself.

So why not a Marxian Catholicism? Or a Marxian nationalism? There's no reason within Marx's philosophy that you can't elevate some other ethical category, like Christian eschatology or nationalism, to the highest level of historical/dialectical importance. Within his own epistemology he can't assert an abstract historical teleology. That's exactly what he criticized Hegel for doing.

>>15884101
How about a Marxian Traditionalism?

>>15884101
You should stop reading philosophical garbage for 3 years and then come back to considering the questions that interest you. It's very clear that you overdosed on garbage and need a detox in order to be able to think properly.

>>15884101
>I don't understand why the worker/proletariat, in a universal sense, has to be the subject of revolutionary self-consciousness.
Aufhebung always has to come form below, because only those on the underside of a power relation underside the true meaning of its flaws. The bourgeoisie can never see their errors, because they cannot truly see themselves, they are trapped in their own perspective and are the ones who determine the logos.

>>15884865
>only those on the underside of a power relation underside the true meaning of its flaws
only those on the underside of a power relation UNDERSTAND the true meaning of its flaws. It's the consciousness outside the logos trying to get inside of it, basically.

>>15884101
>Within his own epistemology he can't assert an abstract historical teleology.
He never tries to, really, because as per his critique of Hegel that you mention, there's no way to actually scientifically assert any one particular teleology, so he says "well, we need to do something about the present state of things, because while we do not know what it is we want, we know we do not know this" - negative dialectics. It's a practical kind of philosophy

>>15884887
>we know we do not know this
also can be stated like "we know that we do not WANT this", which is where Deleuze's (neo-spinozist) interpretation of Marx picks up on

>>15884516
That looks interesting, can you tell me about it? I will check it out but would appreciate your thoughts as well.

>>15884865
I can see that from a Hegelian perspective, but who's to say that the "below" can't have multiple meanings, or be a "beyond" instead? Even Marx's fixation on freedom of the subject is unjustifiable within his system, it's a transcendent commitment, effectively religious. Why not simply say that Marx's free subject/worker is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a fully actualized human being?

From what I understand Marx doesn't discount that members of other classes can attain, and empirically do in some cases do attain (as in the case of Marx/Engels themselves), self-consciousness. It's just that the worker is MORE free, so the worker is the best or natural engine of revolution.

So again it seems like freedom is an immanently recognized condition of the (transcendental) subject, but Marx's positive valorisation of it is transcendent, not immanently derived. Why not valorise other things in addition to freedom, like for example excellence or spiritual self-cultivation, the condition of which is freedom?

>>15884887
Interesting, is this related to Adorno's ND? I agree with you but I'm still confused why you can't be a "Marxist, AND.." on this model.

>>15884865
Is that the lynchpin to Intersectionalism, to destroy the logos and replace it with a new one, and also why these people say crazy shit like science, mathematics, and philosophy being too white? I mean, what's the point? You're just replacing one oppressor with another and having sour grapes because you're not the ones on top.

Bump

>>15884101
>I don't understand why the worker/proletariat, in a universal sense, has to be the subject of revolutionary self-consciousness.

It doesn't, it just that it's necessary for specifically capitalism to be overthrown. Throughout history it was actually the middle classes that transformed society, and the reason is that only the middle and upper classes had political and economic representation.

Feudalism was essentially abolished because the burghers who became rich from private banks lending them credit to produce factories and industry made feudal lords obsolete. Why should anyone care about a noble lord's fiefdom and manor if a capitalist burgher in the city can oversee a factory that produces shit 500% faster and more efficiently than serfs using oxen ever could?

If you ask me, the question we all got to ask is who is going to supplant the capitalist? What will make the capitalist as a class obselete? When does society no longer need a class of people that allocates capital towards economic projects that generate profit?

Honestly it's possible they will be wiped out of existence by artificial intelligence.

>grundrisse
isnt that just an initial draft for Das Kapital? why should i read it?

>>15886631
They are his notebooks

Bump

>>15881744
I see where you're getting at, but it's still nonetheless a non essential Marx work. It's important to define this stuff because then people associate the completeness of Marx's work and thought with the manifesto

>>15884101
>Marxian Catholicism
Exactly what I want to some day come to theorize